Measuring moderations: a cross cultural and comparative research in services between brazilians and canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the relationship of relational benefits and their consequent variables by moderating cultural idiosyncrasies. The field research was conducted among 297 Brazilians and 207 Canadians. The collected data were analyzed by statistical tests such as comparing means, MANOVA, canonical correlation and moderation in regressive models in order to test the proposed technique. There were also methodological contributions through the development of computational scripts that identified the power and direction of each construct and path. The comparative analyses confirm that Brazilians are possibly more demanding than Canadians when evaluate services. On the one hand, due to Brazilians are culturally with greater power distance, we may indicate that to give them special treatment is an important factor in increasing satisfaction with employees. On the other hand, due to Canadians belong to a more egalitarian society, there are feelings that these privileges and "jeitinhos" should not be just for a few. The results obtained in this study may also be useful in strengthening business ties between Brazil and Canada in order to raise awareness among both countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".